10 March 2019 1:17 AM

PETER HITCHENS: The real cause of knife crime? It's hidden in a fog of cannabis smoke

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

Does any powerful person in this country ever think? It has been quite astonishing watching the alleged debate about knife crime over the past few days. Not a single thought took place.

There is a very good reason why people generally don’t stab each other. Normal, sane humans recoil from the very idea of plunging a sharp blade into a fellow creature, let alone driving it so deep that it is bound to kill.

The crime has been rare because nobody wanted to commit it. Yet now we have a significant minority who do not recoil. So what has changed?

It is not because knives are more easily available. There have always been plenty of knives. You do not need some menacing, wickedly curved weapon to end a life.

Every home in this country contains blades that could kill, in the hands of a person who wanted to use them that way.

Even if they didn’t, the person who wants to kill can fashion a deadly weapon from all kinds of readily available things.

The crucial factor is his willingness to use it.

The problem has, in fact, been growing for years, concealed by the brilliant skills of our paramedics and doctors. Night after night, they have saved the lives of appalling numbers of stab victims.

If we still had the medical facilities and techniques of 50 years ago, this change would have been obvious for some time.

So what is it that has changed? School exclusions? No. Global warming? No. Police numbers? Oh, forgive me while I laugh. The police have been absent from the streets of this country for decades now, reacting to crime after it happens and so losing control of it.

You can say this to them over and over again, and they never pay any attention, presumably because they actually don’t fancy the idea of the old-fashioned regular preventive foot patrols, often actually at night, in wind and rain, that used to keep us so safe. Someone else can do that. Just not them.

The modern copper would rather be on a squad, investigating claims that the late Ted Heath, or some other corpse, was a paedophile.

If there were two million of them it wouldn’t make any difference because, like the schools, they are doing the wrong thing, and if you give them more money they will just do the wrong thing more expensively.

Here is the problem. We are told that stabbings are at their worst since 1945. This is itself untrue. The year 1945 is chosen because that was when figures on stabbings began to be collected. In reality, they are the worst figures since this became a civilised country under the Victorians, really the worst figures since an unpoliced London was roamed by armed footpads, and highwaymen haunted the country roads.

In a way, they are even worse than then. This is, by comparison with those times, a rich and settled society. But in an important way, we are worse. We have drugs. These drugs do not just intoxicate, as alcohol does. They make their users mentally ill, irrational, uninhibited, careless of the consequences of what they do.

No, not every marijuana smoker goes out and kills. So what? Not every boozer gets into fights, or commits rape, or kills people with drunken driving. Not every cigarette smoker gets cancer or heart disease. But we act against these things because of the significant minority who do cause or experience these tragic outcomes.

And almost all of those who go out and kill someone with a blade will turn out, once the investigation is over, to be a long-term user of marijuana, no longer wholly sane or wholly civilised. Its widespread use is the only significant social change in this country that correlates with the rise in homicidal violence.

It is a problem which a lot of people don’t want to discuss. Who are they? There is the billionaire lobby, of businessmen and politicians, who want to legalise marijuana, who hate every mention of the increasingly obvious connection between use of that drug and severe violence. It could rob them of big profits and big tax receipts.

It could upset the well-funded lobbies for appeasing drug abuse by so-called ‘harm reduction’, such as the Government’s own increasingly shameful ‘Talk to Frank’ website, which matily assumes that those who visit it will take drugs anyway. A fat lot of harm that will reduce. There are the lobbies for more money for the police, who have only one simple-minded, thought-free answer to everything. There are the police themselves, who found that it was difficult to enforce the laws against marijuana possession, and so largely gave up doing so. They obviously don’t want to start again now. Diddums, I say.

And there are people who see the trees, but not the wood. Immediately after the knifing horrors of the weekend, a Government Minister, Victoria Atkins, blurted out the truth, namely: ‘Drugs is the main driver as far as we are concerned of this serious violence’, and then added a flat lie, ‘which is why we are very keen to ensure that the laws in relation to illegal drugs remain as tough as they are’.

They are not tough, Minister, because they are not enforced. They just look tough. Everyone in the world knows they are not tough, except for the Government.

Please, please, please try actually thinking.

***

The Beeb’s scandalous addiction to Profumo

Here we go again, this time it’s the BBC making a series called The Trial Of Christine Keeler in which the sad 1960s call girl will be beautifully impersonated by Sophie Cookson (pictured).

You’d think nothing happened in that era apart from the Profumo Affair, which didn’t matter at all. But it was packed with scandal.

A decent drama about the Suez Crisis or the anti-railways Transport Minister Ernest Marples, who actually skipped the country (in a train), are badly needed. But they don’t involve sex. Could that be the problem?

***

I see the RAF says that it killed just one civilian in all its recent bombing in the Middle East. The other 4,013 who died in British air strikes were all Islamist combatants. Gosh, that is fantastic accuracy. But can we just imagine what we would say if the Russians made any such claim for their bombing of Syria? The Defence Ministry must think the British media and people are contemptibly stupid to dare to say this.

***

When we gave in to the IRA in 1998, and agreed to let off legions of their ‘volunteers’, who had killed so many people in the Troubles, surely it was understood at the very least that there would be a similar amnesty for all UK servicemen and police officers, even those involved in questionable or (in my view) plain wrong incidents such as Bloody Sunday? So why is it now being seriously suggested that British soldiers may face prosecution? The Blair creature, so often praised for this squalid appeasement, should be asked.

***

Listen up! I've applied to run Radio 4

I have just applied for the post of Controller of BBC Radio 4. My application form went in on Thursday. Am I serious? Perfectly. Will their response be? I doubt it. I was partly motivated by rumours of the names that were being considered – a collection of liberal establishment figures of the sort who are already strangling the BBC.

My view is that, in return for the licence fee, the BBC owes a duty to listen to, and treat seriously, the views of people who are not in that establishment.

And they don’t do this. Many of them don’t even realise there is any other view of the world than their own. I have promised that, if appointed, I will most certainly bring equality and diversity to that great radio station. Just perhaps not the sort of equality and diversity the BBC has in mind.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In a narrative review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine the authors write that sugar could act as a gateway to alcohol and other addictive substances, adding that like sugar, like cocaine and opium, is refined from plants to yield pure white crystals – a process they say “significantly adds to its addictive properties.”

Too much sugar could increase depression risk in men, study suggests
Read more
The article was co-authored by cardiovascular research scientist James J DiNicolantonio and cardiologist James H O’Keefe, both from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas, together with William Wilson – a physician with the nonprofit US group practice Lahey Health.

“Consuming sugar produces effects similar to that of cocaine, altering mood, possibly through its ability to induce reward and pleasure, leading to the seeking out of sugar,” they write, citing rodent studies which show that sweetness is preferred even over cocaine, and that mice can experience sugar withdrawal.

Posted by:
Stop sugar its mind altering (see below) which in hitchens criteria means it needs to be banned |
13 April 2019 at 04:19 AM

Michael Wood

I don't know. He lost a 'no confidence vote' not long after something given the name 'Betsygate', an investigation involving tax-payers money paid to his wife. But that aside, he never seemed comfortable at the despatch box throughout his two years as leader of the opposition.

Really? Am I supposed to agree just because you say so? If so, do you think that what we need is a meek leader in these interesting times when, if the hoi polloi are right, it appears a Trump-like figure is what we really need!
Alan Thomas,
Yes; yes; no, and yes - a barbarian will counter barbarians - everything is circular, which is how such life tempers its propensity towards violence. At its end, when the last barbarian dies, only the meek remain.

Really? Am I supposed to agree just because you say so? If so, do you think that what we need is a meek leader in these interesting times when, if the hoi polloi are right, it appears a Trump-like figure is what we really need!

Politicians have 'crossed the house' or carried on as an independent MP without standing in a by-election for as long as I can remember (c.60 years). Sometimes they stand down at the next GE, stand as an independent, or stand for a different party.
I'm sure you are aware that Winston Churchill stood as a Tory, later as a Liberal, and then back again as a Tory!

You are absolutely right. I apologize for my error. Freud seems to have thought that he was "caught in reenactment syndrome” in relation to David Copperfield (see: Rudnytsky, "The First Gift"). This is because Freud married Martha Bernays but loved Minna, just as Dickens's hero married Dora Spenlow, then found that his true love was Agnes Wickfield. Let's not go on to the topic of poor Kate and Nelly Ternan.

By contrast Nietzsche, who read a lot of English literature (and disliked it mostly), did not read Dickens.

Alan Thomas
I forgot to add, " It's a rum old do", when you see a politician on tag able to vote. Although I did read they may have had to attend probation during one vote.
Blimey, bra straps probation, tag, texting.
I suspect some could well do with an, "appropriate adult".

Alan Thomas
Lose their seats? Trouble is we have a group now who won't put it to the test of a by election, after leaving their party benches. Having their cake and eating it and being prominent voices.
Then there are those like Jon Trickett, Shadow Cabinet Minister interviewed on Sophy Ridge this morning, where she pointed out in 2018, a quote of his on the screen, " If people feel our privileged political elite has decided to find a way of reneging the previous referendum that would cause severe difficulty and rightly so"

I agree with Ian .Duncan .Smith. on Marr this morning about those who do not show collective cabinet responsibility. Be sacked or resign like others, stop taking the money and the privileges that go with it.
Mrs. May should show some backbone and sack Rudd, Gauke and Clarke. I'd like to see I.D.S. back he resigned becuase George Osbourne had cut the fund to help the changeover for the new Universal Credit.
If she can have Rudd back then she could ask I.D.S.
I read there is talk of putting another candidate against Bercow next election.
he ticked off Andrea Leadsom for using her phone, when she had came to Parliament without any courtesy of him informing her of his intention to announce his refusal to have another vote on her deal.
He said he didn't have to inform her, fair enough, but I've sat and watched a lot of debate and he could have said a thousand times over about mobile phone use and that members should be listening to debate.
For the viewer you see them looking down texting and scrolling, at least with males they wear a jacket, but you often get a vision of a double tummy.
if it isn't that you witness another female M.P. adjusting each bra strap to tuck under an inappropriate dress for Parliament.
Bring back the wigs and set a uniform of business suits.
Goodness know what Betty Boothroyd thinks of all this.
As to what's happening next,after the headlineso of a weekend, it could be all change again.
I'll sit back and wait, to see what happens to the deal the E.U. have allowed her to have.

I have never read a more depressingly accurate description of the decline of our country and our politics. If a British politician in the mould of Trump emerged here will it reverse our decline or reinforce the divisions in our society? What we need is less Party politics and more national interest politics. Less managing votes along party lines and more consensus around sensible policies to improve the lives of everyone.
One thing missing from the piece was the dramatic erosion of the right of free speech which shuts down debate of any subject that is not acceptable to the liberal elite, and once we lose that right, our subjugation will be complete!

Well, my thinking in regard to what MP.s might think is, not surprisingly, rather different. I would be amazed if more than a handful (against your 'many') are not fully aware of the danger losing their seat at the next election.

A more difficult question is when will that be, and to whom will they loose it to...?

Alan Thomas
I do think many politicians are so out of touch they seriously believe they are, "safe" at the next elections.
We had a Leave result and a majority of Remain wishing politicians.
If Mrs. May had from the get go shown No deal plans were in place, she would have had a stronger hand.
Did she want one though?
I think the media and politicians are out of touch, because her speech did hit the nail on the head. After a long time watching a good deal of debate Parliament Remainers are thwarting will of the result.
It's actually the ERG who are the only ones true to the referendum result.
The media have got that back to front.
Let's see if they dare extend past April 12th and M.E.P. elections.
I believe they are so thick skinned they are so sure they are protecting us from ourselves, they can't envisage a drubbing.
If they are talking up a Norway option that will not end freedom of movement and taking back control, they really are delusional and out of touch.
I predict at the next general election a lot of spolied ballot papers.
To top it all the celebrities want to revokecarticle 50.
Bob Geldof who sneered at the protesting fisherman. Hugh Grant.
Just about sums this country up, luvvie superiority.

Vikkib
Politics live with panellist who I lip readed as calling Nigel Farage a pratt. Afew days ago sure you can get it back.
I believe same member of panel who is very vocal and often affronted did once comment about a finger and about said guest on live feed, where he would like it. I think if memory serves me correct it was on Marr.

Re: Posted by: philip m | 14 March 2019 at 01:00 PM + Cloud's replies
I don't use Facebook much but often use Twitter for "controversial" (to "liberals" and "democrats" and "progressives") comments and so find I am usually triple or quadruple Shadowbanned when I check my status on a shadowban testing website.

Strangely, on the odd occasion I'm supposedly free of shadowbans, my replies and retweets plummet to almost zero, even if I'd been in the middle of several conversations that had been getting several likes and retweets!

Also frequently when I try to retweet something controversial (to the usual suspects) I get a message saying I can't as the Tweet has been deleted.

Yet if I go to the Tweeters timeline there it is!

Of course Facebook and Twitter aren't the only social media with these problems, and I'm sure we can all think of examples much closer to home.

To Neil Saunders,
I don't think Freud read Dickens. He read Shakespeare, and his comments on Hamlet aim at ascribing an Oedipus complex to Shakespeare. Freud was not interested in analyzing fictional characters, but, through the characters, their authors.

Freud would have had a field day with Miss Havisham! (Perhaps he did; I should research it.) A jilted bride who adopts a girl-child not to prepare for the physical motherhood she herself has been denied, but as a single-generation, electively barren avenger against all men.

Come to think of it, Estella was essentially groomed to become a gender-feminist Social Justice Warrior.

Estella could have been a guiding star for Pip. The fact that Dickens gives her the name Estella, and the role of carrying a light in front of Pip, is an ironic reversal.

My other point was that grand old institutions, including, but not limited to, the Catholic Church in Britain, can become bitter and ungenerous towards the next generation. Hence my comparison with Miss Havisham.

William (and Jeremy BJ)
I like your golf club scenario which pretty much sums up our current situation over the EU. I would only suggest that we should offer more than the £39B as a one off payment to release us from their prison. Any deals or involvements with them afterwards would be done from a level playing field, not under threats of any kind.

Having to go begging to this horrible organisation, for 'permission' to leave, is one demonstration of why we want to rule ourselves and which the media rarely makes any fuss about, which they should.

This week, a man on the politics show on BBC, accused Farage, (when he went to get any of the 29 countries to vote against the extension of article 50), of being a hypocrite. He said doing this went against Farage's continued talk about ruling ourselves and in doing this he was therefore a hypocrite!
He appeared to spectacularly miss the point that as we *are* ruled by the EU, we *have* to ask permission.
But worse, not one of the panel pointed out this obviously twisted nonsense and he was allowed to repeatedly make this non point without anyone explaining the idiocy of his logic.
Why was this allowed? Each member of the panel of five, just sort of smirked, slightly shamefully, I thought and allowed him to not only make a fool of himself but lower the standard of political debate.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.